“[Max] saw the blood and was furious,” Omar said. “He left like a rocket to attack the thieves. One of them ran away but Max dominated the other one. To defend himself, the thief ended up shooting my dog."The dog took two shots in the chest and one in the leg. He made a full recovery in only a few weeks. Accompanying the article was an image of Persisco and Max (when Max was fresh from the fray and still in a cast).
In the comment section, fellow safety advocates shared their thoughts, such as;
note: these are comments from different people; a person per paragraph, authors spaced between
(after comments that mused about the breed of the dog, speculating about being a boxer mix)
They are always Pit Bulls until they get into trouble, then they are "some other" breed, that's how that works. They have websites you can go to and pictures of mixed breed dogs and you can pick one and use that breed.
The hypocrisy is ridiculous. If this dog had attacked a child they would be calling it anything but a pit bull. FWIW I see boxer too.
I'm sure every once in a while the mauling instinct comes in handy and finds a suitable target.
'Hero Pit Bulls' don't cut it for me, or anyone sane. No other breeds need this kind of 'heroism' broadcast and shoved down our throats constantly (oh, I wonder why...). Dogs of all kinds attack intruders, would-be rapists, bark at fires etc-bloody-etc. THEY don't need these 'hero dog' labels that the damn Maulers do. NOTHING they do can cancel out or make softer and better, the mutilating injuries or the miserable and painful death of one child. 'Heroism' does not resurrect the dead nor restore formerly innocent smooth faces back to their former beauty.
people who want a protection dog should choose another breed not known for random violence
The dog just did what he wanted: attacked someone. That someone could be anyone. No heroism in it.
With the exception of breed speculation, I agree with the above. I wrote;
Everyone's already said what I think about these hero stories and the underlying motivation of the dog (attack happy, not defense happy)... however, I do see clear pit in that image. It's uncommon coloring, and the angle of its head obscures the trademark cleft head, but the shape and proportions are congruent with pitbull. (note; trademark 'pitbull smile') I don't think every pitbull hero story is a wash.... that's just too black and white for me; that's how nutters think. (i.e. pitbulls are *never* at fault).
The point I would remind fencers and the public is... is that is part of what makes pitbulls so dangerous... their ability to, for a time, play the part of a 'normal' dog. Their temporary docility and mimicry of affectionate dog behavior misleads a person, lulls them into a false sense of security, makes them think it is indeed an appropriate companion animal.
These behaviors are misconstrued as genuine affection akin to that in other breeds, when in reality they are more rooted in the bloodsport kill-set they were bred for... namely that the element of surprise is a plus in battle, and therefore it is in a fighting dog's best interest to NOT broadcast intent; they do not growl. They do not snarl. They do not tense. They do not assume an aggressive stance. They just... GO, suddenly, instantly, *without warning*.
Aside from genetically endowed tactical deceit, this misleading affectionate or calm behavior bonds the animal to its owner (via the owners emotions and perceptions, not through a dogs deliberate motivation--one sided love, if you will), which makes it all the harder to fathom anything other than their limited personal experience with the breed, and makes it harder for them to face the cognitive dissonance and opposing world view that pitbull reality presents.
Think about it; by the time abusers become obviously abusive, they've played enough 'prince charming' to manipulate their victim's heart... it's very difficult for a victim of domestic violence to absorb that the love they feel is so real was a sham, a ploy, a manipulation... we are always reluctant to give up things that we were so certain was good and right. Humans intrinsically shy away from being wrong. That's why denial has such a broad scope across differing issues.
What I want people to understand/remember is that the very same 'good' dog is no safer than the family pets that have suddenly turned and killed their loving owners, children, friends, visitors, fellow companion animals/members of the same 'pack' as people view it...
This breed is incapable of genuine fealty, as is evidenced by the multitude of aforementioned victims. Hell, the blog Craven Desires (and other good blogs listed on its blogroll) has a tag for people that are spontaneously attacked by their own pet/family dogs, titled 'Darwin Awards'.
It is NOT a short list. I think the average person not-yet-familiar-with-the-issue would be stunned by how long it is, and how frequently it happens within this particular breed.
What it all boils down to is; yes, these hero stories can/do happen. But that has no bearing on all the idiopathic attacks that have/do happen[ed]. One doesn't cancel out the other. And when it comes to differentials among breeds; true, genuine hero stories, such as this one--where the dog runs headlong into danger in defense of or to save its owner, well these are extremely rare in bully breeds.
By comparison, you are much much more likely to be protected/saved by established companion breeds such as retrievers. Serious/fatal attacks can/have happened by other breeds but it is in such stark contrast that, statistically, these other breed attacks are likened to flukes, while serious and fatal attacks by pitbulls are common enough to establish congruency of dangerous behavior in the breed.